From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 05:31:42 CDT
At 22:18 -0700 2004-05-19, John Hudson wrote:
>I don't automatically accept the argument, made by Michael earlier
>today, that 'There is a requirement for distinction for X in
>plain-text'.
The Universal Character Set is supposed to contain all the scripts of
the world. For generations students of writing systems have been
naming and distinguishing scripts. I have such books here from the
middle of the 19th century; presses in France, England, and Italy
were cutting type for these scripts two hundred years before that at
least. The plan is to encode the important distinguishable nodes. A
different level from palaeography, as can be seen from the
unification of varieties under the rubric "Phoenician". (I note that
at least one person has argued reasonably for splitting Neo-Punic off
of that unification.)
>On what basis do we decide that X is necessary in plain-text while Y
>should be done with mark-up or some other 'higher level protocol'?
Wit and taste? There isn't an algorithm.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 05:33:19 CDT